Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Centers of Interest

[Bret Busby <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>]

Subject: 
           Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Centers of Interest
      Date: 
           Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:41:28 +0800
     From: 
           Bret Busby <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>
        To: 
           Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
 References: 
           1 , 2 , 3




Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 
> On 10:03 12/01/01, Bret Busby said:
> >Robin Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > Jefsey and everyone :)
> > >
> > > well, my opinion is pretty clear - a good example is that you cannot own a
> > > trademark - you have to use it in order to keep it.
> > >
> > > Same with domain names. You cannot own the words, you have simply secured a
> > > right to use that word for a particular purpose.  Hence why I support
> > the term
> > > holders over owners.
> > >
> > > I can own a company, own my artwork, etc. Those are tangible assets. But I
> > > cannot own a word. I can only hold a word as a domain name or a trademark.
> > > Words are common property that are used for many different purposes by the
> > > public. Hence yes - I support Sotiris on the issue of attempting to own
> > > language.
> >
> >In this, I disagree, on two points.
> 
> No, I am sorry you cannot until you have first a "domain name" defined.

I believe that I can disagree. Whether you, or anyone else may agree
with my contentions, is another matter. Whether the perception of the
definition of a domain name, varies between various people, is another
matter. In the context of what has been said, about whether a domain
name may be owned, or held, or both, people can agree, or, disagree,
and, agree to disagree, with what has been said. I disagree with what
was said. I have that ability, and, that right. People may disagree with
me, and, equally, that is their prerogative.


> I do not know what you intend to say when you speak of "domain name".
> I do not what Roien means by a "domain name". But knowing Robin,
> hering you and knowing what I develop for 23 years in term of "domain
> name" I may tell you that a lot have changed and will change.
> 
> I terefore suggest you join the http://dnref.org and help us defining

"Netscape is unable to locate the server."

Is this a valid domain name (no debate as to what constitutes a domain
name, in relation to that question, please)? If so, is the hosting
server available 24 hours each day? If so, a DNS resolution problem
appears to be occurring.

> what is a domain name. This afternoon we were 4 persons to attend
> the ISOC meeting: the one who created the basic of the IP protocol,
> the one who probably created the domain name, a former Director of
> the ICANN and an IPv6 really acknowledged competence. All we
> could do was to agree we could not even dream yet how domain
> names could work two years from now. The idea was that the WIPO
> was off their basket and would create more problems to the "owner,
> holders, users, designated party, etc..." than they would help them!
> :-)
> 
> >The first is this; a domain name is an asset. The pirates
> >register/buy/whatever a domain name, then, put it up for sale, at a
> >price far in excess of (hundreds of times of) its cost to them. For
> >example, if a domain name costs a pirate 17USD, which I understand to be
> >about the annual cost of registration, and, the pirate puts a selling
> >price of 3400USD (two hundred times its cost to the pirate), then, the
> >domain name is regarded as a commodity to be bought and sold, and, it is
> >owned by whoever owns the registration of the domain name.
> >
> >The second is this; a domain name is owned as a unique identifier, which
> >can equally be traded, as a business name can be traded. For example,
> >lets say that you own a company named Miller Astral Transport Vehicles,
> >which produces a model of vehicle, known as the Enterprise. Then, one
> >day, you decide that you are getting too old, or too tired, or too
> >lacking in inspiration, to continue torun this large multi national
> >company that you built from scratch, and, you don't like your realtives
> >enough to give it to them, so, you sell it. In selling it, you sell the
> >company name Miller Astral Transport Vehicles, as part of the sale.
> >Miller Astral Transport Vehicles, is a name that uniquely identifies the
> >company. Now, lets say that you want to have a website, and, a domain
> >name, http://www.matv.com . You register the domain name, for your
> >company, and, as long as you pay the annual regsitration fees, you own
> >the domain name, and, may use it, via hosting, to publish a website,
> >that is uniquely identified, as relating to your company. You are at
> >liberty to sell the domain name, and, it would likely be regarded as an
> >asset, that is part of your company. You will note here, that I am not
> >going into the issue, of some nasty sod taking a trademark on your
> >company name, that you have not trademarked, and, trying to take your
> >company name and domain name away from you. Such issues are another
> >matter. The issue here, is purely whether a domain name should be
> >reagarded as something that is owned.
> >
> >Thus, I contend that the term domain name owner, is the appropriate
> >term, and, more appropriate than domain name holder.
> >
> >--
> >
> >Bret Busby
> >
> >Armadale, West Australia
> >
> >.....................................
> >"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
> >answer means."
> >  - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
> >  - Douglas Adams, 1988
> >.....................................

-- 

Bret Busby

Armadale, West Australia

......................................
"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
answer means."
 - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 - Douglas Adams, 1988 
......................................
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html